Reconcilable differences:

Archivists, catalogers, and manuscript materials

By Marah deMeule and Gwen Gregory

ABSTRACT: Archivists and catalogers have different perspectives on the description and cataloging of library materials. They often use different tools and standards to gain intellectual control of collection materials. However, they can work together to make unique archival materials more accessible. At the New Mexico State University Library, catalogers and archivists are working together to add bibliographic records for their manuscript collections to OCLC and to the local online catalog. This is an educational and enriching experience for staff in both areas. It also provides greatly increased access to these collections.

KEYWORDS: Manuscript collections, archival cataloging, New Mexico State University Library, Rio Grande Historical Collections, VTLS, OCLC, cataloging

Marah deMeule (marahde@lib.nmsu.edu) is Archives and Manuscripts Librarian at the New Mexico State University Library, Las Cruces, NM. She received a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland, and an MLIS and Endorsement of Specialization in Archival Enterprise from the University of Texas at Austin.

Archivists and catalogers sometimes seem to speak different languages. A gap in perspectives exists between archivists and catalogers; they may be highly skilled in their respective fields, but are not always expert in each other's specialties. Fundamental concepts of, and approaches to, bibliographic tools and the uses of descriptive information are sometimes based on quite different academic backgrounds, professional practices, and knowledge.

The gulf between archivists and catalogers was recently made clear in two separate incidents. During a demonstration sponsored by New Mexico State University of a long-established archival cataloging software, records containing parentheses -- geographical headings such as "Valencia County (N.M.)" -- could not be searched because of software limitations. The vendor (an archivist) suggested globally replacing parentheses with brackets. To do so would render these entries improperly formed, no longer meeting accepted cataloging practice and unsuitable for loading into either an online catalog or a national utility such as the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC.) His next suggestion was to conduct global replace operations on the database before and after every search -- clearly impossible. This archivist’s confusion at the technical demands of cataloging was equaled by a cataloger’s misunderstanding of the general nature of manuscript collections. During a workshop on the Integrated Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC) Format and its use in manuscripts cataloging, a book cataloger interrupted frequently to suggest that archivists use the "Varying Form of Title" or 246 field, in addition to the 245, "Title Statement" field. However, manuscript collections do not bear any titles formed by creating bodies or publishers, let alone varying titles. They are given simple, precise titles by the archivists who process them, stating the name of their creator, the basic nature of collection, and its inclusive dates. An example of such a title is "Diego Abeita papers, 1927-1981."

Cooperative efforts between archival and cataloging units at the New Mexico State University Library have offered both an opportunity to learn more about the intellectual and practical world that each inhabits. The library’s manuscript repository, the Rio Grande Historical Collections (RGHC), collects unpublished materials on the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, especially those materials relating to southern New Mexico. The RGHC staff also manages the University Archives. Because New Mexico State University is a land grant institution, materials collected by the RGHC emphasize topics relating to the traditional mission of the land grant university, such as agriculture and natural resources. RGHC archivists are knowledgeable about contents of RGHC collections, and about descriptive standards for archival materials. While able to create the contents of catalog records, archivists are currently unable to add these records to local and national cataloging utilities. Only cooperative efforts with cataloging staff, expert users of the library’s local online system and OCLC, made it possible to increase accessibility of these valuable research collections.

Archivists create written descriptions providing access to their collections. Traditionally, precise standards for these tools were established in-house, with archival staff deciding content, format, and style conventions. Archivists use a continuum of descriptive practices: inventories and finding aids which describe collections at series and folder or housing unit level; collection guides which describe holdings at the collection levels; and repository level descriptions which briefly explain a site’s strengths and major collecting areas. Historically, many of these tools tended to be similar in format from repository to repository. The archival community has moved in recent decades to create and disseminate standards for the content and distribution of information on collection materials (Walch 1994).

The creation of a MARC record, then, is merely another step in the process by which archivists can explain their holdings to external audiences. One archivist has likened the MARC record to "...the proverbial tip of the iceberg; the culmination of a sequence of operations including accessioning, arrangement, and the preparation of a variety of in-house finding aids." (Miller 1997) Unlike other archival descriptive tools, such as inventories created for in-house use, this tool can not be formulated by archival standards alone. It must meet the technical standards, format, and content conventions stipulated by the bibliographic systems in which the manuscript repository operates. The MARC record will be used by local and national computer systems, and must meet their standards. It must fit into local cataloging practices, which may be unfamiliar to the archivist. If entered into OCLC or the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN), the record must also conform to their practices.

Catalogers are fluent in the functions and needs of bibliographic utilities and a range of bibliographic standards. Catalogers are also expert regarding the content of the catalog records within their systems. They maintain numerous standards, such as authority control for all headings, to ensure conformity in records. With a better sense of how manuscript records fit into both local online catalogs and national utilities, they are able to weigh the technical and practical considerations of creating MARC records, and decide how to upload them into local and national utilities.

Initiating the cataloging of RGHC materials required consensus between archivists and cataloging staff to establish internal guidelines on content, technical details, and standard practices. Each group needed to develop better understanding of the cataloging standards used by the other. The cataloger’s guidebook is the Anglo-American cataloging rules, 2nd ed., better known as AACR2. The comparable resource for archives and manuscripts cataloging is Archives, personal papers, and manuscripts, abbreviated as APPM. This resource supplements AACR2 by elaborating on the cataloging of unpublished materials, and is used in tandem with AACR2. Both units also reviewed existing external bibliographic standards for the creation of manuscript catalog records. These records, like other specialized material types such as serials, have their own format, the MARC Mixed Materials format. This format replaced the MARC Archives and Manuscript Control (AMC) format following the second stage of format integration in 1996. Archives staff also reviewed the records created by a number of different repositories, looking for examples of "best practice." These examples were discussed with cataloging staff, and all their technical implications, e.g., fields used, authority sources considered.

Limitations of the library’s VTLS OPAC had to be considered closely. While staff would like to add 856 fields (Electronic Location and Access) to catalog records linking these records to finding aids, the links cannot be activated with our existing VTLS system. Additionally, many of the fields used in manuscript cataloging are not typically available for public viewing in VTLS. Cataloging staff analyzed the fields used in the Mixed Materials format and requested that library systems staff activate those which would be used. Other fields, foreign to archival practice, are required by systems such as VTLS. For example, manuscript collections do not carry call numbers, but VTLS requires that a call number be present in every record. We decided that manuscript collections would carry "call numbers" which are actually manuscript collection numbers. These unique numbers are assigned to every collection in the RGHC, preceded by "Ms" as an abbreviation for "Manuscript." By using a unique RGHC number as a call number, archival staff can describe their collections in a manner that uses an existing means of identifying its holdings. Cataloging staff do not have to create and track new numbers. This method also enables staff to quickly find all manuscript records in the catalog by performing a call number sort. Since there are no Library of Congress call numbers beginning with Ms, any item with an Ms call number will be in the RGHC.

Manuscript cataloging is original cataloging. No other library owns these unique items. For catalogers of archival and manuscript materials, this creates several important considerations. Because the items are unique, it is vital to create bibliographic records alerting potential researchers to their availability. However, the time spent creating records for these unique materials offers only one immediate benefit: improved access to the materials. Traditional benefits of cataloging are usually not applicable to manuscripts cataloging. Staff of the Amistad Research Center have noted that archives "... do not fully join in such economic benefits as shared cataloging and interlibrary loan." (Stielow 1995) Manuscript repositories engaging in large-scale cataloging efforts must carefully evaluate their effort, and weigh factors such as staff training, time constraints, and the volume of work to be done.

Staff of the RGHC made several decisions in order to streamline their work, while producing records of an acceptable quality. In most cases, only collection-level records are being created. The inherent flexibility of the MARC Mixed Materials format allows some discretion in the detail and level of cataloging. Archival practice has favored a level of description far lengthier than that used for cataloging of published materials. A catalog record for a book can point users to a work that exists in different libraries, and may even be available for purchase. A unique collection, available only at one site, is far less accessible. To address this, the catalog record offers users a more substantial sense of the contents, format, span dates, arrangement and organization of the materials contained therein. The flexibility of the MARC Mixed Materials record also allows for cataloging at different levels within a collection: the RGHC could create series-level descriptions of larger collections of personal papers. For example, family papers contain sub-groups, or series, of papers created by individual family members. A collection level record could be created for the entire collection, with linked records describing the individual series composing the collection. (Wilkerson, 1998)

Other methods of streamlining cataloging include adhering to internally generated templates, and cataloging materials related by subject. Almost all RGHC catalog records contain the same fields. However, the amount of information recorded in some fields, such as the 5xx notes, may vary from record to record, according to the size or complexity of the collection being described. A second method is to focus cataloging efforts on materials centered on a common subject. This allows archives staff to become familiar with the numerous subject headings available, and to use them more consistently across these collections.

RGHC staff, with better access to collection materials and knowledge of collection contents, are responsible for creating the content of MARC records. Archivists currently use MicroMARC cataloging software to create MARC records for RGHC collections. This personal computer based cataloging system was developed especially for archival use. All the technical cataloging information is present in the record: field codes, indicators, and delimiters. The completed records are forwarded to Bibliographic Services in electronic format. This allows cataloging staff to open and view the contents with the technical information they require already present in the record. The records can then be manipulated as needed by cataloging staff. This data is cut and pasted directly into OCLC records, using OCLC’s Passport for Windows software and a Windows-based word processor.

Every collection is different, and some are composed of materials that can be better described by a cataloger more expert in the specific format they represent. For example, a recent small collection consisted of three substantial federal government documents bound together, all concerning local dam construction, which included many handwritten notes and calculations added by engineers bidding on the project. RGHC staff, while familiar with the Mixed Materials MARC format used to describe manuscripts, lack the specialized knowledge of serials or government documents catalogers. The archivist developed the call numbers and special notes for these materials. They were sent to the Head of General Cataloging, who created separate monograph records for each document, allowing intellectual access to all three of the items.

One of the most crucial responsibilities in manuscript cataloguing is authority control. The library’s Cataloging Specialist is responsible for all authority headings in the online catalog: subject headings, personal and corporate headings, and geographic headings. Manuscript catalog records are created using established Library of Congress (LC) Subject Headings. Occasionally, we consult other subject heading sources, such as the LC Thesaurus for Graphic Materials. Some name and geographic headings used in RGHC records have never been used before, and no authority record exists to indicate how they should be formed. This is especially true of personal and corporate names of regional and local persons and organizations. While the RGHC follows cataloging guidelines and best practice when forming new headings, these headings must ultimately meet the national standards that the Cataloging Specialist oversees and maintains for all of the library. This Cataloging Specialist also adds RGHC records to OCLC. From OCLC, they are exported to the library’s local online catalog in the same manner as all other cataloged items.

The benefit to users of cataloging RGHC collections is obvious: greater intellectual access to these materials for users. These records are available both through OCLC and through the local online catalog. Searchers of OCLC’s WorldCat around the globe will find references to NMSU’s unique materials. For example, a researcher elsewhere in New Mexico is studying the Zuber-Draw Watershed District of Chaves County, New Mexico. They search OCLC’s WorldCat under this subject, and find OCLC record 38053246, for the Zuber-Draw Watershed District records, which are held in the RGHC. Local or remote researchers interested in the library’s collections can perform similar searches in the online catalog, which is available to remote users via telnet and through the library’s web page at http://lib.nmsu.edu.

The project also benefits the staff involved in this effort. For archives staff, direct involvement with the innumerable technical decisions and standards required in cataloging has been a tremendous learning experience. It has an impact on archival practice by creating greater understanding of the necessity for standard descriptive elements, such as name headings. This encourages staff to form headings associated with manuscript materials more precisely from the very beginning. As a collection is acquired and accessioned, proper headings can be established or followed, to be utilized later as the collection is processed and described in finding aids, guides, and catalog records. For cataloging staff, the opportunity to work with and learn about the unique collections of the RGHC has been interesting. They have also learned about the MARC Mixed Materials format, which was not previously used by the library. This broadening of the library’s knowledge base will help staff to work more effectively with present and future online systems.

The library plans to continue its archival cataloging project. Over 300 RGHC collections remain uncataloged. When these are completed, staff will continue to add records for newly acquired materials. The ultimate goal is to provide complete bibliographic access to the RGHC’s collections. Archival staff are also exploring the possibility of using grant funding for retrospective cataloging of some of these items, as current staffing levels allow only occasional cataloging efforts. Both units also hope to eventually use the library’s system for all cataloging activities. This will be possible with a newer integrated library system, which allows more flexibility in field size and display. Archives staff will be part of the next system selection study, and will give their input into the selection process.

A final and unforeseen benefit has been greater understanding of a common role that both catalogers and archivists play in library settings. Although some of their methods may differ, both professions seek to establish intellectual control over, and allow access to, collection materials. In larger academic libraries, there is often little contact between different departments. This project has created new bonds between two disparate areas of the library.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allchin, Barbara M. 1995. "Subject Access to Archival Collections: A Comparison of Online Finding Aids and MARC Records for Manuscript Collections in the Southern Historical Collection." Master’s thesis, University Of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Archives and Authority Control: Proceedings of a Seminar Sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution, October 27, 1987. 1989. Pittsburgh, PA: Archives and Museum Informatics.

Bibliographic formats and standards, 2nd ed. 1996. Dublin, OH: OCLC, 1996.

Evans, Max J. and Lisa B. Weber. 1985. MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: A Compendium of Practice. Madison, WI: State Historical Society of Wisconsin.

Gorman, Michael, and Paul W. Winkler, eds. 1988. Anglo-American cataloging rules, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Hensen, Steven L. 1989. Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts : A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Libraries, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Society of American Archivists.

Library of Congress rule interpretations. 1990. Washington, DC : Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress.

Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division. 1995. Thesaurus for Graphic Materials. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Cataloging Distribution Service.

MARC Home Page. 1998. Library of Congress, Network Development and MARC Standards Office, available via the World Wide Web at http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/

Miller, Fredric. 1997. "Archival description," The Reference Librarian No. 56: 55-66.

Smiraglia, Richard. 1990. Describing Archival Materials: The Use of the MARC AMC Format New York, NY: Haworth Press.

Stielow, Frederick J., Rebecca Hankins and Veola Jones. 1995. "From Managerial Theory and Worksheets to Practical MARC AMC; or, Dancing with the Dinosaur at the Amistad," The American Archivist, 58: 464-74.

Walch, Victoria Irons. 1994. Standards for Archival Description: A Handbook. Chicago, IL: Society of American Archivists.

Wilkerson, Peter. 1998. Multi-level description: One strategy for implementation with personal papers. Draft copy available via World Wide Web at http://www.schistory.org/multilevel.html

Yakel, Elizabeth. 1992. "Pushing MARC AMC to Its Limits: The Vatican Archives Project," The American Archivist 55: 192-200.